UC system struggles with professors' outside earnings

As a UC Irvine physician, Thomas Ahlering received more than $100,000 from a company selling a surgical robot, but directed most of it to his foundation without disclosing it as required by UC rules, the Register reported in 2013. FILE PHOTO: MARK RIGHTMIRE, ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

Disclosing outside compensation

Under state law, UC faculty who are leading research must disclose publicly any payments or gifts they receive from the companies or other parties involved in those studies. They must also disclose how much stock or stock options they hold in that company.

According to university policy, all faculty also must disclose on internal annual reports how much time they are spending on outside activities, as well as how much they were paid for that work.

Officials currently are reviewing the policies to determine whether more can be done to improve oversight.

Doctors eventually solved the mystery of why Brenda Kitrosser suffered from unrelenting pain after her back surgery at a University of California hospital in San Diego.

A UCSD surgeon had implanted experimental screws and other hardware into her back, promising this would relieve her pain. Instead the devices pressed on her nerves endlessly, according to a lawsuit she filed later.

It took longer to uncover some critical details that Dr. William Taylor, the surgeon, had not told the retired special education teacher or the university: He owned stock options worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in the company selling the spinal devices and had also collected six-figure annual fees from the same firm, the lawsuit said. Disclosure of such corporate payments is required by state law and university policy.

A lawyer for UCSD said Taylor did nothing wrongand denied that any patients were harmed. But the university last year paid Kitrosser $1.75 million to settle the case.

The controversy over Taylor’s undisclosed compensation is not an isolated case. The University of California has repeatedly failed to discipline medical professors who did not disclose payments from drugmakers and medical companies.

Last month, after UCLA paid $10 million to settle a lawsuit that centered on undisclosed corporate compensation, the non-profit group Consumer Watchdog called on state Attorney General Kamala Harris to investigate how widespread the unreported payments have become.

In a letter to Harris, the Santa Monica-based consumer group said that evidence presented in the case had shown that the university’s policies were “either inadequate or unenforced.”

“Patients in UC hospitals deserve the most reliable surgical devices and medication,” the group wrote, “and they shouldn’t be treated as subjects in expensive experiments.”

Officials at UCLA and UCI said they have recently increased efforts to make sure professors comply with the rules. UCLA doubled its compliance staff and hired a chief compliance officer. UCI’s chancellor directed all medical faculty to certify they were in compliance with reporting requirements and not engaging in unauthorized outside activities.

Those changes came after a series of undisclosed compensation cases involving professors from across the UC system. In each case, the professors who received the payments were involved in promoting or encouraging the use of a company’s product at the same time they were treating patients. In all the cases except one, it was people from outside the university who discovered the undisclosed payments.

• In a Los Angeles courtroom last month, Dr. Robert Pedowitz, the former chair of UCLA’s orthopedic surgery department, testified that administrators retaliated against him after he tried to get surgeons to report their corporate payments – including one doctor who said he had received $250,000 from a device maker for just 20 days of work. Just before closing arguments, UCLA agreed to pay Pedowitz $10 million to settle the case. The university said administrators did nothing wrong.

• At UC Irvine, Dr. Thomas Ahlering received more than $100,000 since 2002 from a company selling a surgical robot, but put most of that money in his nonprofit foundation without disclosing it, the Register reported last year. University officials say they have since required Ahlering to turn over $4,000 of that money to the school.

• An investigation by U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley in 2009 found that UCLA spinal surgeon Dr. Jeffrey Wang had failed to report almost a half million dollars in compensation he had received from several companies. UCLA officials say Wang was required to turn over an undisclosed portion of that to the university.

Although some of the professors were required to return a portion of their undisclosed pay to the university, it’s not clear whether the universities disciplined them in any other way.

In Oakland, UC administrators said they have an obligation to encourage faculty to work with companies to develop new medicines and medical devices that can help the public. And they pointed to the policies that the university has long had in place to require faculty to disclose payments.

“We also recognize that more can be done to increase transparency and oversight,” said Steve Montiel, a spokesperson at UC’s Office of the President, “and we are reviewing our policies to determine how best to achieve these goals.”

As a UC Irvine physician, Thomas Ahlering received more than $100,000 from a company selling a surgical robot, but directed most of it to his foundation without disclosing it as required by UC rules, the Register reported in 2013. FILE PHOTO: MARK RIGHTMIRE, ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
Dr. Robert Pedowitz, former head of UCLA's orthopedic surgery department, accused administrators of retaliation after he pushed for disclosures of outside compensation. ISAAC ARJONILLA, STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

1 of

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.